1. DISCUSSION :
That was a 52 pages long thread, started by an 9/11-O.S. Truster.
O.S. = the Official Story about the 9/11 attacks events and its explanations by many US agencies, institutes and politicians, especially regarding the
three WTC collapses, the flight 77 Pentagon attack, and the faith of flight 93.

The honest observer and reader can see the discussion derail into an ordinary online fist-fight between an O.S.- Truster and many of his backers, and
a flock of doubting opponents.
Let's name them O.S.-Truster (Trusters) and O.S.-Doubter (Doubters), for the sake of faster typing and as a simplified indication of posters their
intentions.

I found it an interesting read, watching the Truster OP (opening poster) trying to defend himself against the reasoning from Doubters against his
arguments.
Which arguments were clearly based on a strong believe in the O.S. and its proponents.
Thus, the OP was a fierce Truster. I wonder if he still is one today.

If I were you, the trusting or doubting reader of this thread, I would read that above thread's pages, and then read my following reasoning against
all the offered arguments, pro and contra, and You Tube videos by Trusters and Doubters posting in there.

If you find any arguments in there (pro OR contra the OS-arguments), and you can't come-up with an explanation to counter or enforce them, ask me or
any other long term poster here, and we will do our best to answer as honestly as possible.
The real truth, based on facts, physics, eyewitnesses and honest reasoning, can ultimately not be doubted anymore.!
Both parties will have to understand that both sides offer some strong arguments, which are reasonable and defensible.

It is my opinion, that the doubters have offered over the years a few undeniable arguments, which indicate that 9/11 was much more than
solely the brutal actions from some disgruntled muslemic freedom fighters.

Occupiers steadfastly indicate them as terrorists, for as long as their, or other muslemic countries are being occupied by foreign forces.

=======================================================

b]1a. DISCUSSION :
For the huge amount of non-member ATS forums readers, who don't see my signature and the 9/11 evidence links in it, until they get over their
personal obstacles, blocking them from applying for a free ATS membership :

And in my long EVIDENCE link exposing the whole 911 OFFICIAL LIE, it now
includes seismic articles by Dr Graeme McQueen and Dr Rousseau, that perfectly fit my own WTC-7 seismic research from 2005-2006.

Not one OS-Truster ever was able or dared to come up with solid counter-arguments against any of those many, posted by me, evidence pieces, proving
that 9/11 was more than what the official story wants us to believe.

=======================================================

For a fresh 9/11 doubter or truster, this video seem to come up with reasonable arguments, for a newbie starting to get interested in the 9/11 deeper
subjects : www.youtube.com...
Video-title : 9/11 Debunked: WTC - Zero Hallmarks of Controlled Demolition :

2. DISCUSSION :
This above and below video was made by Ryan Owens, a fierce OS Truster.
At least his accompanying music is much better to stand than many of the uninformed anti-OS You Tube video posters. And he shows a thorough reading of
parts of the NIST reports.
He has a lot more "9/11 Debunked" videos up at You Tube, and promotes these 3 sites :
HTTP//www.911myths.com
HTTP//www.wtc7lies.googlepages.com
HTTP//www.debunking911.com

It's time at last that I and others are going to spend some time, to bring some reason back, at those sites. Now will be a good moment for that.

And I warn fellow Doubters, there will be some substantial arguments there, that will be historically and intrinsically true. Do not clinch too long
at forgotten and proven wrong conceptions about that day, a lot of what the first doubting writers fed us as undoubtedly true, turned out to be wrong
or even intendedly false.
F.ex. speed of gravity collapses at the twin towers. There was only 2.35 seconds of a true speed of gravity collapse sequence during the first seconds
of the global collapse of WTC 7, as proved by David Chandler (see my signature LIST). Not at all at the twin towers.

However, lots of their reasoning at these 3 websites can be countered easily with the knowledge we all sampled collectively, up to this date in
time.

At 0:16 loud explosion sounds can be heard in a video of a planned high rise building demolition.
Explanation : This public demolition object was first gutted of all windows and exterior and interior masonry separation walls, so in fact simply a
building carcass with empty floors and only concrete and steel columns was left standing.
Of course in such a case you clearly hear all the cutter charges going off.
It's as if they are set off in a totally open space.

In the 3 WTC's, all windows, all separation walls and the whole infrastructure of the floors under the 2 plane impacts were all still present,
working as great mufflers for any demolition sounds.
Btw, only the first row of explosions had to be muffled by some means, for example with muffler blankets. You can see one black blanket flying out of
a bursting window in one of my signature LINKS at the bottom of each of my posts (only visible for ATS members btw., not for visitors).

Another muffling means could be nylon barrels filled with water, with the bomb or cutter charge fitted inside or outside of the barrel, but at the
side where the barrel stood against a column; or on top of a beam and the bomb or cutter charge fitted at the bottom of the barrel. Lots of water,
instantaneously turning into lots of steam is a tremendous effective explosion-sounds muffler, and btw, thick clouds of dense concrete dust
also.....

Also take in consideration that the 2 twin towers were very high ones, thus the sound of the first demolition charges set off just under the plane
impacted floors took at least 1 second to reach a person standing with a video camera with a microphone build-in, outside on the street-level of a
tower periphery.
Sound travels at around 333 meter/sec. through air of 20 C. Sound travels through steel columns at >20,000 meter/sec. Which means that the picked-up
demolition sounds were mixed outcomes; the steel embedded explosion sounds traveling through the rocky soil of Manhattan were picked up first by the
microphones, then minimal 1 sec later came the air embedded sound. That's why you hear that roar, resembling a freight train of noise coming down at
the cameras.
--more--

Camera operators standing further or much further away from the collapsing towers would register sounds much later, or not at all, like just before
the WTC 7 collapse.
That initial demolition sound was only registered via steel columns and soil to the camera, the global collapse sound of WTC 7 was not registered at
all by that microphone many blocks away. But the initiating demolition sound was registered as a very low, deep rumbling sound, 2 seconds before the
east penthouse on the roof-floor started to sink into that top roof-floor of WTC 7.
See my Signature LINKS for that video with that deep rumbling sound, in the first seconds of that WTC 7 collapse sequence video. And all over that
thread's 22 pages.
And find there also the video with that female interviewer, interviewing a lady with a baby in her arms (See my other Sig.links). Her cameraman picked
also that rumbling up, it even picked up about 7, spaced tightly apart, explosions.

At 0:38 Remark about visible flashes in controlled demolitions.
Explanation : Of course, since those are not cover-up jobs. Like 9/11 definitively was one.
For explanations and evidence, see my Sig. links.
And, btw, see several videos of the 2 tower collapses, where you can see those flashes shimmering through the steam and concrete dust. (See my
signature LIST.)

The reason is clear, why you did not see any flashes at the exact moment that the global collapses were initiated. The initiation of all 3 collapses
had to be hidden inside the core columns. The twin tower collapses started when the critical core columns at one or two floors just under the plane
impacts were cut by cutter charges. And those 47 core columns were packed inside the whole elevator-lobbies and stairs spaces in the central part of
those towers.

The light of demolition-flashes were blocked by sheet-rock walls at the rims of the center cores. And it was a bright, sunny blue sky morning.
After that, the only help needed for a seemingly naturally following gravitational collapse were thermobaric bomb charges set off at each third floor,
which blew out the exterior walls and the thin reinforced concrete on the thin steel floor plates. These caused the rings of smoke spitting out of
every floor their windows, on all 4 sides.Cascading down all the way until all the dust blocked sight of it. (See for videos my signature LIST.)

At 0:48 Remark about dust and pancaking.
Explanation : The waves of dust at the initiation of the collapses at the twin towers should have been pitch black, caused by all the soot and smoke
of still smoldering or burning fires behind the exterior panels.
The dust was however whitish or light gray, a sure indicator of Thermobaric charges which are exploding.
Let's not spend any more words on the pancaking theory, that's old "stale news".
There was no pancaking of floors, period. See the NIST reports and their FAQ's.

At 1:03 Remark about demo.-explosions noise that can be heard miles away.
Explanation : I repeat, this was not a paid for, demo.-job, where a whole structure is first stripped from all expandable structural parts. It becomes
in fact a hollowed out structure.
The WTC's were still erect and fully equipped buildings.
And cutter charges in a closed environment make right out disappointing crackling noises, when muffled by all internal walls, doors, windows,
furniture, curtains and eventual a few barrels of water and lots of muffler blankets. Remember, it was a planned attack.
ONLY the first floor to give way needed muffling ! After that floor blew, the lower floors needed no muffling effort at all anymore, since the
planners knew very well that the rest of the demo noises would drown in the overall huge sound-train thundering downwards.
They planned it this way. One tower first, then after that one sunk-in the minds of the global television audience, the next one fell, to double the
awe-impact. Then the flight 77 Pentagon attack, followed by the flight 93 staged attack. To top it off, the afternoon demolition of WTC 7.
That was enough to dumb down most US voters, and let them become docile sheep that would follow any kind of far-right tuned patriotic drivel, from
that day on. And most western nations followed the path of the US think-tank planners.

At 1:08 Remark about sound of explosions not picked up by any cameras.
Explanation : Just see my signature LIST for many examples of them.
Phone boot video with that TB charge going off with that give-away double crack explosion sound.
WTC 7 pre-collapse deep rumbling in the first two secs of that video.
Female interviewer 3 blocks away from WTC 7 plus the audio analysis.The _BoNez_ video of the N. Tower collapse. The 2 firefighters, "boom boom boom
boom boom". Officer Bartmer about WTC 7 : "Ï know an explosion when I hear one, and it went "boom boom boom boom boom"".

At 1:29 Remark about taking out a, to be demolitioned building's inner core first, which then pulls the rest of the building inwards.
Explanation : Exactly what took place at both twin towers, only, it was executed just below the plane impacts. Those impacts were also planned to
happen at their exact floors.
Those were floors in both towers, where 2 major banks had reshaped 2 floors into one double-floor height, and placed long double rows of very heavy
and big lead/sulfuric-acid battery racks against one exterior wall. To be used as computer backup energy source in case of an electricity outage.
That's a lot of highly corrosive strong acid.
One bank employee later told a newspaper that he knew they were never tested or used.
It could thus just as well have been Thermobaric Bombs (TB's) containers, since the batteries were never tested. See my signature LIST.

At 1:36 Remark :Yet, from multiple angles, the core of the South Tower up to the impact zone can be seen standing intact for several seconds after
the rest of the building has collapsed.
Explanation : That's one of the so called Spires. For the north tower it was a single corner column. Not the core.
And for the south tower, its top point stood not up at all to the impact zone, much lower, he made that simply up himself. Check it in his own video,
place your mouse arrow at the impacted floors, then wait until that spire shimmers through.
And he shows a far too short clip that is also cropped, to be able to exactly measure the real heights out.

At 1:56 Remark : Many claim the North Tower's core did fall first, and as evidence point to the following video which seems to show the TV antenna
falling first..
Explanation : That antenna stood on top and in the center of a pack of thick reinforced hat trusses, which was connected in the center to the core
columns, and at the periphery to the 4 exterior panel sides. That sinking of that antenna shows undoubtedly that the core was compromised. Because the
whole top part moved down first, without the still standing part moving at all. 47 thick steel columns that seemed to be cut simultaneously.
That's not a form of natural, gravitational collapse, that's a sign of planned demolition.
--more-

At 2:04 Remark : Yet, in 2005 it was realized by NIST that this is an optical illusion caused by the camera filming from the north as the antenna
falls to the south.
2:14 Remark : Other angles clearly show the antenna falling at the same time as the rest of the building.
Explanation : You can clearly see in his own video that the antenna sunk first straight down for a few seconds, then toppled slowly over.
Second remark : The antenna which is connected to the central core sinks while the impact zone is not sinking in the same pace. By far not.
Clear evidence of compromised core columns.

At 2:31 Remark about the north tower's Spire.
Explanation : Clearly an exterior corner's column. Not the core.
You see that immense big square exterior panels-part toppling over as a whole, to the right, then you see the corner column spire standing for a
moment, than sinking straight downwards. That was the exterior corner where that huge square was connected to just a few seconds before.

At 2:36 Remark about WTC 7, that 3 trusses were the collapse initiation cause, and not the core itself.
Explanation : NIST determined in 2007 that the failing of WTC 7's core column number 79, was the initiation cause of the collapse. They explained
that failing as steel expansion by fires.
David Chandler proved it to be caused by explosives. Since only those can force a building's roof line to initially fall at free-fall speed for 2.35
seconds.

At 2:46 Remark : Fourthly, if explosives were placed on each floor of the two towers, this would have caused them to collapse at free-fall speed.
Yet, we get a time of 15.28 seconds for WTC2 and 22.02 seconds for WTC1, nowhere near the free-fall speed of 9.22 seconds.
Explanation : I was the first ever to point to that video from the running for his life, BBC camera man, who's camera kept filming the plunging down
pieces of exterior panels to the ground.
Thus yes, it took much longer than free fall speed.
That's exactly what I showed to ATS that year already. At an early time already, when everyone was not checking at all these baseless remarks all
over the Internet about the twin towers falling at free-fall speeds.
They were not. Far from that.

Still, however, they were demolitioned, and in a clever sequence. Just blown the cores out at intervals, to keep the then following gravitational
collapse at pace. They didn't want those collapses to halt, and then cause tremendous follow-up costs to demolish the then still erect remains.
And more importantly, in such a case, to be able to find still not exploded charges, and all other kinds of evidence.
Those three towers had to come down totally, and that's why we saw these rows of explosions traveling down the twin towers, and the smooth sinking
down of WTC 7. True gravitational collapses look very different, with intermittent small halts during collapse, caused by differing resistances of the
internal building structures. And random toppling of pieces inward and outward during collapse, and sudden changes of collapse directions.
See the Windsor building collapse of its top part. That was a true gravitational collapse.

See David Chandler's video in my Sig.-LINKS, about his comparison of a true, and a fixed by demolition, gravitational collapse.

The first in France, where they pushed the columns of the full middle floor of a high rise apart, which got then followed by a true gravitational
collapse sequence, which he measured out.
And it showed the rising resistance of the bottom building parts, met by the falling top part.
Shown by him as resulting always in a V-shaped graph. The right part of the V-shaped graph always has a shorter leg, for all natural occurring
collapses.

The second one was the collapse initiation of the top of the WTC north tower, which showed a straight graph line, during the many more seconds
duration than the above French one, of the fall of its roof line until it fell out of sight, indicating without a shimmer of doubt, a fixed demolition
of that top part. Proving no resistance at all beneath that roof line.

At 2:56 Remark : Fifthly, controlled demolitions cause buildings to implode inward, landing in their own footprint. Each footprint of the WTC
towers was one acre, for a total of two acres.
Yet, the debris from the two collapses was spread over a 16-acre site, 8 times the size of the combined footprints.
3:15 Even WTC7 fell far outside of its own footprint, causing 1.2 billion in damage to the Verizon Building and irreparable damage to 30 West Broadway
(currently under deconstruction).
Explanation : It was meant to look like a natural gravitational collapse, each of the three WTC's. After the initial set off of the demolition
charges. So why on earth eventually being so stupid to show off a perfect public demolition?
And that's why they opted for TB's, to keep the, forced inevitable pace during the thundering down of those buildings. TB's leave no traces left to
be found by curious investigators, they disperse in the air since they are gaseous explosives, used especially for black operational buildings
demolitions, that have to look as gravitational collapses.

At 3:59 Remark : "Debunking every single 9/11 conspiracy theory, one at a time.".
Explanation : Let him, or any other OS Truster, confront me on my signature links !
All these years already, not one of them turned into a taker of that challenge.
You can't debunk them. Period.
Thus, 9/11 was an officially endorsed huge Lie !

PLEASE NOTE: This video was made in September 2007. The official investigation into the collapse of WTC7 at this time was still ongoing and did its
final report was not released until more than a year later, in December 2008. Therefore, everything in this video was based on their working
hypotheses at the time, and it should come as no surprise that when the investigation concluded, some of their findings varied from their early
hypotheses (as in any investigation). Namely, the claim in this video that the fires were "likely fed by a series of diesel generators" turned
out not to be the case, and the hypothesis that the collapse started with Truss 1 was also incorrect. The collapse actually started in the same
vicinity only a few floors up, with the collapse of Column 79. However, neither of these two greatly alter the overall conclusions for the mechanism
of the collapse. I would go in and make these changes in the video itself, but all the video's data was on an old computer that I got rid of
literally years ago.

Debunking every single 9/11 conspiracy theory, one at a time.

That last line, it's a triumphant Ryan Owens again. The telltale sign of an overly fierce OS Truster.

3. DISCUSSION : At 0:23 Remark : The following pictures illustrate the kind of damage that debris from the collapse of the two WTC towers inflicted on the
surrounding buildings.
Explanation : All true.

At 0:38 Remark : WTC7, located less than 350 feet from the North Tower, was no exception.
Explanation : Partly true. First of all, you can't see in that first video of the collapse of the north tower, any debris really hitting the south
side of WTC 7, it only seems like so. After studying all their material, NIST concluded that hitting debris played no part in the collapse of WTC
7.

NIST however showed the southwest corner damage as if it was much deeper. Later FOIA requests showed later, better pictures taken by the same NYPD
chopper, indicating only peripheral damage over a few floors at that southwestern corner of WTC 7.
That photo at 1:06 shows the early NYPD chopper photo with the covering smoke acting as if the corner gash was much deeper.

The photo at 1:09 shows the same southwest corner damage, but taken from street level, also with a lot of covering smoke. It however shows the stuck
piece of Vierendeel exterior columns packet.

At 1:11 he shows the top center, partial damage. The gash in the parapet roof line. True damage.

At 1:12 to 1:18 : I have the impression that the poster thinks that that video shows the non-existing center damage, shown by him in this video with
an anomaly in it, caused by well known distortions in films, shot from a very long distance at maximum zoom. You then see dark vertical bands
shimmering over the film. This video was either shot from a news-chopper hovering at the other side of the Hudson River, or it was shot by that ME guy
from his apartment at that same side of the river.

His remark at 1:19 is totally untrue, there was no extensive damage to the south side of WTC 7, only that periferal southwestern corner damage.
Which slight damage was exaggerated by NIST in their reports, by using insinuating leading questions to firefighters, police officers and other
witnesses which they, and later the FDNY editors interviewed in the years after 9/11. I expect they first showed those cloudy NYPD-chopper photos from
the southwestern corner, and then began those interviews. Full blown biased research of the worst kind, if proved true. Ask those firefighters?

At 1:27 Remark from Shyam Sunder, a docile sheep following the insinuations of his political handlers. NIST directors are chosen by the politicians
nowadays, and not anymore based on credentials, experience and overall scientific wisdom.
What is typed out there, is a huge lie.
I posted in my early years at ATS already the witness account of that firefighter who walked along the corridors of the south face of WTC 7, above the
fifth floor, and he reported to his chiefs that he found no damage at all along that south face its rooms. Only scooped out windows and damaged rooms
at the far south corner, but no deeper than the sheet rock walls of those few corner rooms. In fact only the window frames were scooped out, and at
the 2 or 3 lowest floors of that photographed by a NYPD-chopper corner damage, a Vierendeel exterior packet was stuck in those 2 or 3 corner window
frames.
That was all the damage by debris from the north tower, not at all a serious cause of WTC 7 collapsing. As NIST also stated in 2007.

At 2:01 Remark about fires fed by diesel generators. Proven by NIST in 2007 and 2008 to be non-existing.

At 2:14 Remark about creaking sounds from the building and a bulge forming at the southwest corner.
Reporters from the news networks talked all late morning and the whole afternoon about sounds of explosions coming from WTC 7. No wonder that the
demolition preparation work all day long, resulted in those effects these firefighters noticed.
Btw, you can see the seismic effects of those explosions in WTC 7 on that small seismic chart from LDEO, with all those small peaks in it, after the
last tower fell. LDEO and NIST called that secondary collapses, which however were not reported by any firefighters or other first responders walking
around at Ground Zero.

At 2:50, he shows the collapse of the eastern penthouse roof, which he thought to be the result of 3 trusses over the CONED power station under WTC 7
first floors, progressively failing. He corrected that in his PLEASE NOTE message attached to his video. NIST said that column 79 was the failing
cause of that first sign of collapse.
If you read my seismic diagram of the WTC 7 collapse, with my additional typed in comments, it will be clear to any honest viewer, that the first huge
peak in that seismogram indicates one or more demolition charges going off, probably around that same column 79.
Read the rest of my seismic reasoning in my signature LINKS.

The rest of his video is self-explanatory, showing his trusting the official 9/11 story, mindset.
A telltale sign of that is the fact that he does not let you write reactions under his videos, he canceled that feature.

If you really want to know how WTC 7 was demolished, read my seismic evidence, and the seismic evidence of Dr Graeme McQueen and Dr Rouseau for the
twin tower collapses.
And view all of David Chandlers videos, view and read them all in my 3 signature LINKS.

If you are a Truster, try to refute all of that evidence. Become a hero in your online forums.
If you are a Doubter, it will be very refreshing reading, if you are new to 9/11 discussions..

4. DISCUSSION : At 1:00 Remarks about the percentage of damaged exterior and core columns.
Explanation : I can imagine NIST could count from photos and videos how many exterior columns were damaged or lost.
However, the damage to inner, core columns can only be an estimate, those were very difficult to see through the shoveled in debris in the photos of
the plane impact gashes.
And, take in account my "shoveling of Vierendeel exterior column packets" proposal.
It's like a snow shovel, halting quickly in thick snow because of the friction of the amassed snow in front of the shovel.
The planes experienced the same, as can be seen in the gash photos and video screen captures. Lots of debris in front of the core columns, and no
damaged core columns visible, only heaps of debris, piled up against them.
See Ryan's remark at 1:07 in this video.

At 1:20 Remark about the concentration of fires at the south tower in the northeast corner.
Explanation : Realize the use of the words "temperature simulation" in that remark. Meaning, it's a computer generated simulation, not real world
measurements.

At 1:32 Remark : about steel losing 50 % of its strength at 1100 F.
Explanation : NIST found no steel members which were heated any higher than 600 C.
Fires were hopping floors, leaving cooling floors behind. Fires only burned for relatively short times, and steel, when cooling in the high wind,
regains its original strength for a great part.

At 1:34 Remark : As the weakened floor trusses sagged, they pulled on both the core columns and perimeter columns.
Explanation : The old fairy tale of the trusses causing the exterior columns to pull inwards, just before the global collapse initiated.
Those relatively thin trusses under the floor plates were not causing that. They would break first, instead of those much stronger Vierendeel exterior
column packs of three each.
It was caused by the cutting of the inner core columns, which then fell down and pulled at all the trusses simultaneously, and then the exterior caved
inwards. Then the TB's were set off, and those blow-up effects blew those exterior columns back (see his video at 2:20) and blew all the glass
windows out, and then we saw all these explosive clouds spitting out of those windows. In perfect rings around the towers.
Repeated every few floors, to install the seemingly gravitational collapse idea in the minds of the viewers. And to make sure that 3 all towers were
demolished up till street levels.

From then on, more truss remarks till the end. Remarks : The rest of his reasoning based on sagging trusses and bowing in of exterior wall
parts.
Explanation : Or you believe in floor-plate trusses all at once buckling and pulling those exterior columns inwards.

Or you believe in cut core columns that sagged downwards, pulling those trusses down with them over a few meters, thus pulling the exterior also with
them. Then the first TB's were set off, followed by the subsequent floors and TB's. The waves of explosive clouds spitting out of floors as perfect
rings of smoke bursting out of each level.

5. DISCUSSION : At 0:48 Remark : For building 7, no other building has ever had 47 stories of weight on its supports after having the lower 10 floors scooped out
25 % into the depth of the building by falling debris and its fires left to burn for 7 hours.
Explanation : My 1:27 remark in the above 3. DISCUSSION, counters his 25 % scooped out remark. His remark was simply false as NIST found out in 2007
and 2008.
And falling debris from the north tower collapse, according to NIST, played no role in the collapse of WTC 7.

At 0:48 to 2:40 Remarks about several steel framed structures compromised by fires and collapsing afterwards.
Explanation : All in all he is right of course, he shows several other ones.
Those were however different ones. Longer, intenser burning caused by different fuel loads. The overpass fire was a tanker truck that caught fire
under it, and its fuel load of 30 tons burned straight under it and heated the total structure above it up, just enough to lead to that above overpass
to sag and then to collapse.

At 2:40 Remark : the 2005 burning of the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid.
Explanation : Those steel columns and beams top 11-floors (minus the concrete inner core] collapsed after many many more hours of infernal burning, in
a real gravitational chaotic manner.
That whole 11 floors top was engulfed in flames for lots of hours more than the WTC twin towers top levels above the plane impacts.

Those WTC tops were mostly smoldering, giving off black soot and smoke. And still they collapsed after nearly 1 hour, and 1 hr 40 minutes periods.
Much too early to be possible at all for such strong, inner thick core columns + thick crossbeams equipped buildings, and the estimation by NIST about
the 15 % percentages of damaged core columns by impacting planes is just that, an estimate.
Nobody took photos of that alleged damage, and survived the collapses.

Those planes shoveled whole packets of outer wall columns in front of them, as can be seen in high definition photos of the gaping holes in the two
towers. The plane debris was laying, for most of it, in front of those Vierendeel exterior column packets, which themselves came to a halt against
many of the 47 core columns. That whole mass had already considerably slowed down because of that shovel effect.

From 2:57 to the end, some more remarks about the title subject.
Explanation : I do agree with those remarks.

There are lots of 9/11 Doubters confronting videos to be discussed and added with additional remarks.
I will ad more of them in this thread, when I find them interesting to counter, or having snippets of historical truth in them.

I invite others with years of experience in countering official lies, to post their favorite debunking videos or forum texts also in this thread. And
show the discrepancies and plain wrong physics mistakes, calculus mistakes or straight out lies.

All of us should help each-other to introduce additional evidence or reasoning to enrich all the posts.
True facts from official stories-Trusters are also very welcome, but don't be afraid of heavy scrutiny, before we accept them.

The man from the above videos, Ryan T. Owens, wrote on the screen of one of his videos that Barry Jennings died from leukemia. That speck of info was
new to me, I thought we could not determine the cause of his death via an online search effort.

I tried the past minutes to find that video, but to no avail. Because my You Tube videos are a few days already crashing all the time, as a result I
can't find that video back, the browser history gets reset after a video crash, so no links anymore.

I still wanted to address one peculiar thing I noticed in the well known full Barry Jennings interview by the guy from Loose Change. It is the clever
editing of the moment that Barry talks about the time he got smashed up the stairs from floor 6 to 7, and he kept bungling at a handrail. The crucial
part of that testimony is, that they edited his words in about that one sentence they hung up the whole Barry Jennings case.
He seems to say that Tower 2 and 1 had not fallen yet, in one long sentence, after he talks about that explosion that threw him up the stairs.
However, these are cut and paste jobs, you see that it is not one long video shot, between his "explosion" remarks, and his "no tower yet had
fallen" remarks, is a sudden, nearly invisible cut in that video.
They cleverly pasted that last remark behind his "explosion" remarks, to build their case that that explosion happened before the first tower fell.
Which it is now unclear, since they tricked us in believing that was true, while it was just clever editing from their side.

6. DISCUSSION : At 0:00 up to 1:47, all his remarks.
Explanation : I agree with all of those remarks up to that point, flight 77 did end up inside the Pentagon, only the route it followed in the last 10
seconds is still open for fierce discussion.

At 1:45 Remark : In fact, photos of passengers still strapped in their seats do exist. They're too gruesome to include here, but can be found at
911research.com.
Explanation : What he means is photos of Pentagon personnel, charred to death while seated in their office seats, and those were not passengers of
flight 77 at all.

After 1:50 All other remarks
Explanation : I do agree with the rest of his remarks, up to the end of the video.

Btw, very nice background music theme, what's the title, and who's the band, so I can listen to the whole performance?

Damn! I noticed too late, to edit my thread title, that I made a typo in it.
Its last part should read : "Additional T&D-evidence", not "Additional T&B-evidence"
T&D indicating Trusters & Doubters-evidence. From both sides !

I was afraid the full text would not fit in an forum-allowed length for a title sentence.

6. DISCUSSION : At 3:03 : Remarks by Barry Jennings : -snip-....I said there's only one thing we can do, and that's go back up -CUT- Both buildings were
still standing.
Explanation : That's the exact point in the original Barry Jennings so-called UNCUT version, posted on the Internet by the crew of Loose Change, after
Barry told in a later interview with BBC interviewers that he was mis-quoted by the guys from Loose Change. And that he wanted them to correct it.

And the "honest" 9/11 reporters they were, they felt the need to cut&paste those fast spoken words that were definitely not at pace with the former
sentence :
"Both buildings were still standing"
directly behind the other description by Barry, how he hung on that railing at the 8th floor and managed to get on the landing again, and Hess then
asked him what to do.

And thus, everybody was lead to think that those two sentences were spoken by Barry in the same story he told.

It's my firm believe now, that they pasted that fast spoken short text behind the other earlier longer sentences. And they got that from another part
of their original first interview with Barry.
Just to not loose face all over the Internet and counter Barry's BBC interview, where he distanced himself from exactly that piece of the Loose Change
video.

EDIT : Btw, this links to the NIST report :

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

LaBTop, I don't normally argue-by-youtube, but AlienEntity has done a fantastic video of the timeline for Barry Jennings using his own words to show
he was caught in the collapse of WTC 1 when he thought the stairwell had been "blown up". I do recommend viewing it. If you have trouble finding it
please let me know.

You're missing the primary key to the entire debacle - The towers were nuked. This amazing e-magazine proves it beyond any doubt (debates are
welcomed by the author and I can get you in touch with him); this resource is all the more incredible because of the stunning photographs, many never
before published, that are extremely zoomable.

I'm truly amazed that we're still debating this after 13 years. Anyone looking at the towers in mid-collapse can tell, that's not gravity at work.
If it is, every time a tree is cut down, it would turn automatically into sawdust, and our stoves would turn into metallic taffy during dinner
preparations... Why is this so important to understand? Because they did it once, got away with it, and will do it again anytime it suits them.
False flags are quite useful, it turns out. And to those of you who are doing the usual scoffing of 'they don't have nukes that small, or nukes
don't look that way, they're huge', please be educated that we've had mini-nukes for decades now, they are used routinely in combat, and can be as
small as an apple. No need to wire the buildings.

William Rodriguez states that an explosion occurred in the basement prior to the plane's impact, that he initially believed a generator in the
basement had exploded.

It was this initial explosion which resulted in the man emerging from the elevator with his skin having melted off his body, an eye witness account
that was corroborated by Kenny Johannemann, who has since committed suicide...

Could this explosion, prior to the plane's impact, been the result of a tactical nuke?

Rodriguez, while undoubtedly a hero on 9/11, NEVER said anything about bombs in the building in his formal interview with, IIRC, NIST. It was not
until 2004, after being out of work for 3 years, that he started his Last Nam Out Tour. What he experienced was most likely the jet fuel igniting in
the elevator shaft causing a deflagration explosion.

Could this explosion, prior to the plane's impact, been the result of a tactical nuke?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Every single "truther" argument has been countered. Pick one argument and make a thread. Not going to read 10pages of text to only have you change
goal posts and ignore facts.

Okay...The WTC 7 report published by the NIST cannot be verified because the NIST refuses to release the inputs utilized to come to the conclusions
stated in the report. Counter or refute that.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.